A Manhattan federal judge, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, has ruled that a white, heterosexual male law student at New York University (NYU) can proceed anonymously with his case against NYU’s law school. The student, identified as John Doe in court papers, alleges that the law school’s flagship law review discriminates by giving preference to women and minorities, violating U.S. law.
Anonymity Granted Temporarily
In a Tuesday order, Judge Marrero granted the plaintiff permission to proceed with the case anonymously, at least for the time being. While the judge did not provide specific reasoning for this decision, he mentioned that NYU might have the opportunity to seek disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity once the case is assigned to a judge.
Plaintiff’s Background and Intentions
John Doe, currently in his first year at the NYU School of Law, has expressed his intention to apply for a position on the NYU Law Review in the summer of 2024, according to the lawsuit filed in October. These law review positions are considered prestigious and often play a crucial role in helping law students secure employment opportunities.
Legal Representation and Lack of Comment
The plaintiff, represented by America First Legal—an organization led by Stephen Miller, a former adviser to Republican President Donald Trump—filed a motion on November 14 requesting to proceed under a pseudonym. The details of this motion are sealed, and lead attorney Ronald Berutti has not responded to inquiries regarding the client’s desire for anonymity.
NYU Law’s Response Pending
NYU Law, the defendant in the case, has not yet filed its response to Doe’s complaint. A spokesperson for the institution did not provide immediate comment on the matter.
Allegations of Discrimination
Doe’s lawsuit contends that NYU Law Review’s selection policies for student editors and staff violate Title VI and Title IX, prohibiting racial and sex discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funds. The complaint argues that the law review’s emphasis on diversity as a “prime consideration” is discriminatory.
Legal Precedent and Historical Context
This legal challenge marks the second time the NYU Law Review has faced litigation over its diversity policies. In 2018, a different group led by conservative lawyer Jonathan Mitchell unsuccessfully sued the NYU Law Review and the Harvard Law Review. Doe’s case is the first legal challenge to law review diversity policies following the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision prohibiting race-conscious college and university admissions.
Case Details
The case, officially titled John Doe v. New York University, is in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, bearing the case number 1:23-mc-00398. Ronald A. Berutti of Murray-Nolan Berutti LLC represents John Doe in this legal battle.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.